
















^^•'t. . 



. *^ .« .>v^. -V/ /jljl^', *^^^^« y^^M£^, \_ 





























V ^-^..^^ :iec^^o \./^ /^I^\ ^^. 












-^ov^ ::^^' '^^0^ /^^»'-. ^ov^^ ;^^1^<.^ "^^0^ «- 




.^ ^^ 











THE NORTH CAROLINA CESSION 

OF 1784 IN ITS FEDERAL 

ASPECTS 



BY 
ST. GEORGE LEAKIN SIOUSSAT 

Profeisor of Histor>' and Economics in the University of the South 



Reprinted from the Proceedings of the 
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY HISTORICAL 
ASSOCIATION FOR THeYmi^ 1908-1909 



^i^'. 



■f9i 



^m\ 



THE NORTH CAROLINA CESSION OF 1784 IN ITS 
FEDERAL ASPECTS 

By St. Geobge Leakin Sioussat 

(The writer desires to make acknowledgement of assistance received 
from the Carnegie Institution of Washington in the preparation of this 
paper.) 

This paper treats of a certain phase of the Westward 
Movement — the years after the American Revolution, 
when settlers were crossing from the coastal plain of the 
Atlantic into the valleys drained by the tributaries of the 
Great River. Of this movement a characteristic and im- 
portant expression appeared in the building of the Com- 
monwealth of Tennessee ; and in the evolution of Tennes- 
see to Statehood the incident which, perhaps, has attract- 
ed most attention was that experiment which bore the 
name of the State of Franklin. 

The history of Franklin has been the subject of 
much careful investigation. The events which took place 
under the leadership of John Sevier and his associates 
— the quarreling with the mother State of North Caro- 
lina, the Indian troubles, the relation of Franklin as a 
part of the Trans- Alleghany region to the foreign affairs 
of the United States, and especially the constitutional 



development of this transitory body politic — have been 
more or less exhaustively narrated in several well known 
works/ But as to the circumstances that existed in 
North Carolina at the time of the Franklin movement, as 
to the economic relation of the new commonwealth to 
the parent State, and, again, as to the connection between 
these factors and the government of the United States 
under the Articles of Confederation, it has seemed, at 
least to the writer, that the older accounts were in some 
degree unsatisfactory. Hence he has attempted an exam- 
ination of the sources recently made available, particu- 
larly the later volumes of the North Carolina archives, 
and has embodied the results in the following pages. 

It will be advisable first to outline briefly the political 
and economic condition of North Carolina at the close of 
the Revolutionary War; second, to sketch the procedure 
of the government of the United States under the Arti- 
cles in relation to certain important governmental meas- 
ures ; and third, to discuss at greater length the relations 
between the States and the Confederation as to these same 
measures. In this way we shall be led to the economic 
foundations of Franklin and the politics. State and Fed- 
eral, which lay behind the acts of 1784 by which North 
Carolina first ceded to the United States her western 
territoiy and then withdrew her cession. 

The work which the British had failed to do in their 
blows at the center had been attempted again in the 
southern provinces, with expectations of greater success. 
The reasons which had led to the transfer of the theatre 



1 Haywood 's The Civil and Political History of Tennessee (Reprint 
of 1891), Ch. 6; Ramsey's The Annals of Tennessee, Chs. 4, 5; Phelan 's 
History of Tennessee, Chs. 9-12; Roosevelt's The Winning of the West, Part 
IV, Ch. 4; Turner's Western State-Making in the Revolutionary Era, in 
The American Historical Review, Vol. I, pp. 70-87, 251-269; Alden's The 
State of Franklin, in The American Historical Review, Vol. VIII, pp. 
271-289; and Caldwell's Studies in the Constitutional History of Tennessee 
(Second edition, 1907), Ch. 3. 



CAR t8 /j,^ 



/ 



of war were apparently justified in the taking of the 
southern coast- towns and in the bitter civil war which 
the presence of so many loyalists aroused. When hos- 
tilities were concluded, it was a broken South that re- 
mained. The foundation of the social order had been 
shaken by the withdrawal of many who had chosen the 
wrong side. There was much lawlessness and violence; 
the Indians were a source of anxiety; and above all was 
the burden of public debt which hung oppressively over 
a scattered and predominantly rural population. This 
was especially illustrated in North Carolina. Notwith- 
standing some attempts at taxation, throughout the pe- 
riod of warfare the State depended chiefly on issues of 
paper money which ran through a fearful and rapid 
course of depreciation, the story of which has been told 
in detail, if somewhat unsympathetically, by Professor 
Bullock.^ But in addition to financial disaster other evils 
rapidly developed. McRee, in his Life of Iredell ' com- 
ments upon the violence of the partisan politics that 
marked the return of peace, attributing the heat of this 
partisanship to the reappearance of the men of thought 
who had so long been eclipsed by the men of action. Many 
Tories came back to gather what they could of their 
broken fortunes, ruined not only by war but by excessively 
confiseatoiy legislation. Litigation thus stirred up fos- 
tered cupidity and avarice; and speculation, especially 
in lands, ran riot.* As to the government, a picture in 
miniature is given in 1783 when the executive in the per- 
son of Governor Martin sharply lectured the Assembly 
and commenting on the hurried legislation that had been 
passed, said: ''I need scarce mention that a general 
reform is wanting in almost all the offices of State at this 



2 Bullock's Essays on the Monetary History of the United States, 
pp. 184-204. 

3 McRee 's Life and Correspondence of James Iredell, Vol. II, p. 81. 

* McRee 's Life and Correspondence of James Iredell, Vol. II, p. 81. 



crisis. Neglect of duty, abuse of power, disobedience of 
laws, your monies unaccounted for, and public credit 
almost sunk, all call for your authority and correction.'" 

From this rather depressing picture of the internal 
affairs of North Carolina let us now turn to the govern- 
ment of the United States under the Articles of Confed- 
eration, in the years from 1781 to 1784. That govern- 
ment, if not outwardly divided or confused, was sufficient- 
ly ineffective ; and of all manifestations of this, the lack 
of financial control was the most e\ddent. Of the efforts 
of Morris and Hamilton to remedy the loss of credit 
which threatened to vitiate if not entirely to wreck the 
work of the Revolution all our histories of the period 
are full. Very closely related to this was that which 
President Welling in a suggestive though incomplete 
study called ''The States '-Rights Conflict over the Pub- 
lic Lands."® Out of the many ramifications of these 
two questions, some, such as those of international inter- 
est, must be omitted, and we shall take up only those 
essential to the purpose in hand. These may be outlined 
as follows : — 

First, apart from the issue of paper money and the 
negotiation of loans, the provisions of the Articles of 
Confederation pennitted Congress to obtain a Federal 
revenue from the country at large only by ''requisitions" 
upon the States, by which the States were asked to pay 
their respective quotas of the expenses of the common 
government. But it developed that this provision was 
a failure because the basis of apportionment established by 
the eighth article of the Articles of Confederation proved 
unworkable. That article, adopted only after a prolonged 
debate,^ provided that the States should pay "in propor- 

B Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XIX, p. 243. 

6 Papers of the American Historical Association, Vol. Ill, pp. 411-432. 

7 The article was adopted October 14, 1777, in the form of an amend- 
ment to article 9 as originally draughted. — Ford 'a Journals of the Con- 
tinental Congress, Vol. IX, pp. 801, 802. The earlier proposal was to rate 



tion to the value of all land within each State granted to 
or surveyed for any person, as such land, and the build- 
ings and improvements thereon, should be estimated ac- 
cording to such mode as the United States in Congress 
assembled should establish." 

The Journals and the Madison Papers reveal an ir- 
reconcilable difference as to the "mode" which should 
be adopted. Not all land claimed by a State was ratable 
in assessing the State, but only that granted to or sur- 
veyed for any person. This was a vague provision, which 
in 1777 seemed to bear with greater severity on the more 
densely populated States of the East. It is not surpris- 
ing that, when the article was adopted, it was by the solid 
vote of the southern States and New Jersey, while all the 
New England delegates voted no and New York and 
Pennsylvania were divided.* In view of the difficulties 
which the article presented. Congress early in 1783 ''re- 
quired" an assessment of the value of lands; but differ- 
ence of opinion as to whether the inquest should be 
conducted by the Confederation government or left to 
the States resulted in a resolution which was not effec- 
tive.^ In this connection, quaintly observes Madison, 
''Mr. Dyer ludicrously proposed that each of the States 
shall cheat equally. ' ' '° 

The next proposal in logical order was, therefore, 
directed to the amendment of Article 8; and it was at 

the States by the gross population. As to the debate over these two plana, 
see Eandolph's Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, from the Papers 
of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I, pp. 22-25. 

8 Ford's Journals of the Continental Co^ngress, Vol. IX, pp. 801-802. 

9 February 17, 1783. — Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edi- 
tion). Vol. IV, pp. 157-158, 161-164. For the debates on the valuation of 
lands see Madison's Debates in the Congress of the Confederation from 
November 14, 178S, to February 13, 1783, in Elliot's Debates, Vol. V, pp. 
21-22, 24-25, 43, 48-51. See also a letter of N. Folsom cited in Ford's 
Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. IX, p. 947, note 2; and the 
letter of Hugh Williamson cited below, p. 44. 

10 Elliot's Debates, Vol. V, p. 44, note. 



length resolved by Congress that population, rather than 
lands, should be made the basis of apportionment. There 
was great difficulty in reaching agreement on this point 
because of the uncertainty as to how far the slaves should 
be counted a part of the population. The final com- 
promise was the famous rule that three-fifths should be 
counted for the purpose of assessing the State.^^ 

A third related matter of long standing and much 
debated in Congress concerned the granting to Congress 
of some power to levy and collect taxes. With tliis effort 
is inseparably connected the name of Robert Morris. 
The first plan of direct importance, that of a five per 
cent impost, failed after many months of debate through 
the unalterable opposition of Ehode Island.'^ It was 
then proposed, and the idea was adopted in Congress, 
that for twenty-five years Congress should be authorized 
to levy specific duties on certain articles with five per 
cent duties on others. ^^ In either form the impost would 
constitute, of course, indirect taxation, and much argu- 
ment was used to show the shifting of such taxes. 

But in the financial history of these years too much 
stress has been laid on these indirect taxes to the neglect 
of another source of revenue which Morris had repeatedly 



11 April 18, 1783. — Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), 
Vol. IV, p. 191. Ehode Island alone voted in the negative. New York 
was divided. It should be noted that at this stage there was no question 
of representation involved, as there had been when the article was originally 
adopted and as there was in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Con- 
sequently it was to the interest of the slave-holding States to have as few 
negroes counted as possible. 

12 Bancroft's History of the United States of America (Edition of 
1887), Vol. VI, pp. 33-34; and Bates's Ehode Island and the Impost of 
1781, in the Seport of the American Historical Association for 1894, pp. 
351-359. Ehode Island's formal refusal was dated November 1, 1782. 
Congress decided to send commissioners to persuade Ehode Island, but 
before they had fairly started, news was received that Virginia, under the 
influence of E. H. Lee, had withdrawn its assent to the impost. 

13 This was also adopted April 18, 1783. — Journals of Congress 
(Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, p. 190. 



proposed and which was the link connecting taxation with 
the land. 

In the resolutions debated and adopted in the spring 
of 1783 there was added to the proposal of indirect taxa- 
tion mentioned above the suggestion that other revenues 
of such nature as the States might judge most conven- 
ient should be provided by the States for supplying 
their respective proportions of a sum of a million and a 
half dollars of annual interest/* These somewhat myster- 
ious "revenues of such nature as they may judge most 
convenient" are not further specified in the resolutions 
passed April 18, 1783; nor is the ''Address of Congress" 
recorded in the Journals under date of April 24th much 
clearer as to the nature of the "supplementary funds" 
to which it refers. ^^ But, as in so many cases, the omitted 
explanation is of great importance. For some years 
Morris had been urging the granting of taxes upon polls 
and upon lands — that is, direct taxes — as well as an 
excise or internal tax upon spirits. Over these taxes and 
their incidence there was considerable correspondence 
and debate ; ^^ and these are the funds to which the docu- 
ment quoted above refers. 

The political significance of these financial measures 
is to be clearly noted. They had been conceived and 
urged as a balance to the customs duty, in the knowledge 
that the commercial States felt that customs duties fell 
with proximate severity upon themselves, notwithstand- 
ing theories of diffusion that might be advanced. Hardly 
any better illustration of the real existence of this feeling 
can be cited than a letter which Howell of Rhode Island 



1* April 18, 1783. — Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), 
Vol. IV, p. 190. 

'^'^ Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, pp. 
194-197. 

^^ Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, pp. 
198-201; and Wharton's Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revo- 
lution, Vol. V, p. 619 ff.; Vol. VI, p. 280 ff. 



wrote to the Deputy Grovernor of the State on the last 
day of May, 1784, in wliich he criticised the recent act of 
Pennsylvania as to the impost which he characterized as 
"complete" in respect to that tax, but "very deficient on 
the supplementary funds," and indicated that Pennsyl- 
vania did not intend to comply with the whole plan. An- 
other act which he transmitted was that of South Caro- 
lina, which was also in regard to the recommendations 
of April 18, 1783. This was the eighth act of this sort, 
nothing having yet been heard from North Carolina, 
Georgia, New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. But 
only two or three States had passed any acts respecting 
the "supplementary funds". Howell urged that these 
were essential to the general plans and had been so recog- 
nized by the resolution of Congress which said "That 
none of the preceding resolutions shall take effect until 
all of them shall be acceded to by every State". 

"I find", continued Howell, "that the supplementary 
funds are very unpopular this way. The lords of exten- 
sive soil are more ready to mortgage to Congi'ess a twen- 
tieth part of what enters their ports than a hundredth 
part of what goes off from their plantations. But will 
the commercial states suffer the impost to be carried 
into effect before the supplementary funds are granted? 
.... The very unequal operation of such a partial ar- 
rangement must be ob\dous". 

Howell then entered into a discussion of the relation 
of these two forms of taxation to the foreign and to the 
domestic debt, showing how this matter would seriously 
affect Rhode Island. After a comment on the action of 
Congress as to the western lands he added before closing 
that there was good news from North Carolina which had 
just made a cession to Congress. Georgia had not done 
so and was rumored to be in the throes of land-jobbing.^^ 

The Rhode Islanders, then, who went down to the sea 



17 Staples 's Bhode Island in the Continental Congress, p. 515. 



in ships, would have none of a customs duty unless land 
taxes were forthcoming from the landed States. We 
shall see in a moment the bearing of this upon a landed 
State — North Carolina. 

The last of the Federal measures of which we have 
here to take account was perhaps the oldest of all. This 
was the insistence on the part of the "landless" States 
that States claiming western territory should cede such 
territory to the United States for the common good. The 
story is familiar. The importance of the matter is per- 
haps even now hardly appreciated. The State whose 
cession was of chief importance was, of course, the State 
of Virginia, whose claims were imperial in their extent. 
We shall not here trace the earlier phases of the question ; 
but remembering Maryland's refusal to adopt the Arti- 
cles, the resolutions of Congress of 1780 on the subject 
of western cessions, and Virginia's promise of January 
2, 1781, we may proceed at once to the spring of 1783 
when with the other measures which we have now dis- 
cussed this also found a place in the resolutions of April 
18th already referred to. In regard to all these meas- 
ures — the alteration of the eighth article of the Articles 
of Confederation, the granting by the States of supple- 
mentary funds, and the pressure on the States to secure 
cessions of western lands — the attitude of North Caro- 
lina is of interest. 

In the spring and summer of 1782 there was a period 
when North Carolina was not represented in Congress. 
In July, however, Hugh Williamson and William Blount 
appeared as Delegates. Later came Nash, Hawkins, and 
Spaight. There was considerable shifting, and by the 
time of adjournment in the summer of 1784 Williamson 
and Spaight were the only delegates in attendance.'* 
Williamson then left Spaight to serve on the Committee 



18 Williamson came July 19, 1782, Blount, July 22. — Journals of 
Congress (Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, pp. 50-51. 



10 

of the States, which sat during that adjournment, and 
returned to North Carolina. 

Following the order already established we shall 
consider first the amendment of Article 8 — that which 
proposed to substitute population for lands as the basis 
for apportionment. On October 22, 1782, while the de- 
bate was at its height, Williamson and Blount wrote from 
Philadelphia to Governor Martin of North Carolina a 
long letter in which they discussed the matters then 
before Congress. They pointed out that the full effect 
of the original provision as to the apportionment, that is, 
* * land granted or surveyed with improvements ' ' had been 
** avoided" (as they expressed it) on the ground that 
the enemy was in possession.^® In other words, only 
those lands had been counted which were free from Brit- 
ish occupation. To this interpretation North Carolina 
should hold fast. But, they said, when the western 
lands should be included (peace was now in sight), the 
situation would not be so favorable, for these western 
lands would produce little revenue but would increase to 
nearly double North Carolina's quota of the national 
debt. Every State would be charged with its located 
lands, and as land jobbers were not a very popular set of 
men in any country and as the lands would probably be 
valued by indiiferent (that is, impartial) people. North 
Carolina could be assured that the western lands which 
were located but not improved would be rated at their 
full value.^" From this they proceeded to broach the 
subject of a cession by North Carolina. But to this point 
we shall return below. Next year (1783) the North 
Carolina delegates voted for the amendment to Article 
8 in its modified form, which substituted population as 
the basis of apportionment." 

19 Compare Madison 's note on the attitude of the Connecticut dele- 
gates. — Elliot 's Debates, Vol. V, p. 21. 

20 Clark 's State Records of North Caroline, Vol. XVI, p. 434 ff . 

21 Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, p. 191. 



11 



Next comes the matter of the supplementary funds. 
In 1782, E-obert Morris wrote to the Governor of North 
Carolina, as to the other Governors, about his proposed 
Federal revenues, and stressed especially the project of 
a specific tax on land, measured by the one hundred 
acres without regard to value. Morris argued at length 
to show what a light and equitable tax this would be. 
Meanwhile the matter came up in Congress ; and in the 
same letter to which we have already referred Williamson 
and Blount gave their opinion of the scheme. This was 
distinctly unfavorable. They thought such a tax "in- 
sufferably unequal." The vast tracts of sandy barren 
in North Carolina could never be measured with the 
same scale as the uniformly fertile lands in some of the 
northern States. In this case they seem to have looked 
at this Federal tax as highly oppressive to a State which 
had large amounts of land which could so be taxed. It is 
obvious that North Carolina, for example, would pay a 
much larger tax than Rhode Island or Massachusetts." 
From this they passed to the third of our questions, 
the cession of North Carolina's western lands. After 
some reflections on the extent of this territory they pro- 
ceeded to lay down the following definite conditions 
which in case a cession should be made, they urged upon 
the North Carolina Assembly: — 

I. The whole expense of North Carolina's Indian 
expeditions should pass to her account in the quota of 
Continental expenses. 

II. The actual valuation of all lands and improve- 
ments claimed in any State before the cession should be 
confirmed. 

III. The sundry accounts of North Carolina's offi- 
cers should be liquidated and the claims of the State 

22 But as to the impost, North Carolina's jealousy of Virginia, her 
more powerful commercial neighbor, led her to look with favor upon Federal 
control — See Madison 's estimate, Elliot 's Debates, Vol. V, p. 60, note. 



12 

established, so that quotas might be fixed of the debt con- 
tracted or to be contracted. 

IV. The lands so ceded should be disposed of to 
the best advantage by the consent of at least nine States 
for payment of the public debts. 

V. If any separate State should be erected on any 
of those lands, part of the public debt should be trans- 
ferred to such State according to the value of the land 
it contained." 

It is evident that in the minds of those who repre- 
sented North Carolina's interests at the seat of govern- 
ment financial considerations were uppermost; the State 
should use its lands as a means to procure credit for all 
its expenditures and thereby reduce its indebtedness. 
This was to be the keynote of North Carolina's policy; 
and even if a separate State should be erected on the land 
ceded, it should be made to bear its due share of the 
Revolutionary debt. How this share was to be deter- 
mined was definitely stated : it was to be on the basis of 
land value, not on that of population. But such a finan- 
cial adjustment as this was subject to an additional com- 
plication which we have thus far omitted from consider- 
ation, and which must foiTQ the connecting link with the 
story of the cession. 

The North Carolina delegates were prepared to rec- 
ommend the cession of the western lands. But how much 
had North Carolina to give? To think of that State as 
surrendering a shadowy claim to distant western territory 
would be a serious error, for not only had settlement 
crossed the mountains but the State had undertaken to 
grant titles to land in the transmontane region. These 
appropriations of land had likewise a financial basis. ' 

In 1783 the State was, indeed, heavily in debt to the 
Confederation, but the most pressing obligation had 
been to her own soldiers. Already in 1777 the specula- 

23 Clark 's State Eecords of North Carolina, Vol. XVI, p. 434 ff. 



13 

tive fever of the new era had led to the opening of county- 
land offices '" in which within the three years that they 
were open vast amounts of land had been entered. While / 
these offices were later closed,'Mand had been given as 
early as 1780 as an additional bounty to induce service 
in the war. In that year the State had created a military 
reservation to be used specifically for satisfying military 
land warrants, and two hundred acres of land and one 
prime slave were offered to each soldier in addition to 
his annual pay.'' This was raised later to six hundred 
and forty acres." In the year 1782 an extensive act was 
passed and in this act the tenns of payment by which the 
soldiers of the North Carolina Line should receive their 
lands were restated.'' During the following year, 1783, 
another reservation was made for these military lands f 
and at the same session all the lands of the State of North 
Carolina, with the exception of this territory reserved to 
the soldiers and that which was kept for the Indians were 
made subject to entry at ten pounds for every one hun- 
dred acres in North Carolina paper money.^° Thus the - 
public lands were used both to pay the soldiers of the 
State and to restore the credit of her paper currency. 

The result of this land legislation of North Carolina 
was that when 1784 was reached the best of the western 

24 Act of November Session, 1777. — Clark's State Records of North 
Carolina, Vol. XXIV, pp. 43-48. 

25 Act of June Session, 1781. — Clark 's State Records of North Car- 
olina, Vol. XXIV, p. 400. 

26 Act of April Session, 1780. — Clark 's State Records of North Car- 
olina, Vol. XXIV, pp. 337-339. 

27 Act of January Session, 1781. — Clark 's State Records of North 
Carolina, Vol. XXIV, pp. 367-373. 

28 Acts of 1782. — Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. 
XXIV, pp. 419-422. 

29 Act of 1783. — Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. 
XXIV, pp. 482-485. 

30 Act of 1783. — Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. 
XXIV, pp. 478-482. 



14 

lands had been picked out and hundreds of thousands 
of acres entered by speculators. There is, therefore, 
little cause for wonder that Governor Martin, writing 
from North Carolina to the delegates in Congress, De- 
cember 8, 1783, expressed the fear that Congress might 
be dissatisfied with the opening of a land office by North 
Carolina as the State made them (the Congress) no 
cession of any part of the western land. He summarized 
the land legislation of the North Carolina Assembly at 
its recent meeting and added that if the chartered bounds 
of the State had extended west and north of the Ohio, 
North Carolina would have been more liberal, but that 
the State could not think of parting with any lands this 
side of the Mississippi until her own internal debt was 
paid.^^ 

With the winter of 1784, then, there seemed to be 
every probability that North Carolina would remain shut 
up within the walls of State Sovereignty. But while 
North Carolina was disposing of her lands, Virginia,-- 
having provided in the Kentucky region for her soldiers, 
was preparing to surrender her claim to the Northwest. 
At the end of the winter, on March 4th, the Virginia 
delegates completed the deed of cession which had been 
authorized by the act of the Virginia legislature in the 
preceding autumn.'^ 

January, meanwhile, had witnessed at Annapolis 
Washington's resignation of his commission," and the 
end of the year saw the labors of the former Commander- 
in-Chief devoted to the western country. Jefferson and 
Madison were likewise busy in the interim with the prob- 
lem of organization, both looking toward an increase in 
the effectiveness of the general government.^* ^'We 

31 Clark's State Becords of North Carolina, Vol. XVI, p. 919. 

32 Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, p. 344. 
ii J(/urnals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, p. 318. 
3* Bancroft's History of the United States of America (Edition of 

1887), Vol. VI, Part II, Chs. 2, 3. 



15 

hope", wrote Jefferson to Madison, "that North Caro- 
lina will cede all beyond the same meridian ' ' — the meri- 
dian of the mouth of the Kanawha.^^ For the govern- 
ment of the territory he prepared a plan in the shape of 
the ordinance which was adopted April 23d, while his 
scheme for disposing of the land was postponed. In 
addition to the cession, Virginia accepted other recom- 
mendations of Congress. She gave Congress the power 
to regulate commerce and adopted the change in the 
eighth of the Articles of Confederation.^** On April 29th, 
after some debate. Congress voted to press again the 
States which had not ceded their land claims, in an effort 
to make these cessions complete." 

Before this last recommendation of the Congress of 
the Confederation, the North Carolina Congress had 
met.^* At that time Governor Martin had received from 
Spaight a letter, dated February 24th, in which Spaight 
gave his approval to the suggestions of the Congress of 
April 18, 1783, as affording the best means of paying 
North Carolina's quota of the debt.^^ Williamson also 
had written of the Virginia cession.*" Martin's message 
of April 20th repeated to the legislature the proposals 
of Congress.*^ On May 3rd a joint committee recom- 
mended, among other things, the adoption of the change 
in Article 8, the grant to Congress of the impost duty, the 
establishment through taxation of a fund for the prin- 



35 Bancroft's History of the United States of America (Edition of 
1887), Vol. VI, Part II, p. 116. 

36 Bancroft's History of the United States of America (Edition of 
1887), Vol. VI, Part II, p. 122. 

3'' Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, p. 392. 

38 April 19, 1784. — Clark 's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. 
XIX, p. 489. 

39 Written from Annapolis. — Clark 's State Records of North Caro- 
lina, Vol. XVII, pp. 21-28. 

40 Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, pp. 34-39. 
♦1 Clark 's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XIX, pp. 495-497. 



16 

cipal and interest of the debt, and the cession of the 
western lands of North Carolina/^ 

Each one of these recommendations was duly passed 
into a law.*^ The example of Virginia and the recom- 
mendations of the North Carolina delegates had for the 
time won over a majoritj^ of the North Carolina legisla- 
tors to the broader national outlook and the disposition 
to increase the power of the Confederation government. 
Of the measures passed, the Act of Cession has chief 
interest for us. In the older collections of laws the full 
text of this important statute was omitted, but now the 
State Records of North Carolina happily render the whole 
of the law accessible. 

The preamble referred to the resolutions of the Con- 
gress of the United States, passed September 6th and 
October 10, 1780, and that of April 18, 1783, in which 
the States were urged to cede their western territory ' ' as 
a further means of extinguishing the debt and estab- 
lishing the harmony of the United States". Concurring 
in this spirit North Carolina, therefore, ceded to the 
Congress of the United States, "for the said States", 
the title, etc., which she had to the lands west of the 
Alleghany Mountains. 

Omitting matters of boundary let us pass to the 
terms which by the Act of Cession were definitely stated 
as conditions of the grant. 

1. After the Cession should be accepted, neither the lands 
nor the inhabitants of the territory west of the boundary line 
should be estimated in the ascertaining of North Carolina's pro- 
portion with the United States in the expenses of the late war. 



42 Clark 's State Eecords of North Carolina, Vol. XIX, pp. 542-545. 

43 Acts of April Session, 1784. — Clark's State Records of North Car-^ 
olina, Vol. XXIV, pp. 547-549, 557-559, 561-563, 564-565. Another act au- 
thorized Congress to regulate the commerce of the States; and still another 
permitted Congress, in the final settlement of financial matters, to waive the 
provisions of Article 8. — See Clark 's State Records of North Carolina, Vol, 
XXIV, p. 561. 



17 

2. The lands provided by North Carolina laws for the 
officers and soldiers should inure to the use and benefit of those 
officers. Detailed provisions were enacted, permitting the re- 
moval of locations to vacant lands, in cases where there was a 
conflict of claims. The reservations to the Indians were to be 
respected and continued. 

3. All the lands ceded to the United States should be con- 
sidered as a common fund for the use and benefit of such of the 
United American States as then were or should become members 
of the Confederation or Federal Alliance of the said States, 
North Carolina inclusive. 

4. The ceded territory should be laid out or formed into 
a State or States which should be "a distinct republican state 
or states and admitted members of the Federal union having the 
same right of sovereignty as other states". Such states 
should be permitted the same constitution and bill of rights 
which were now established in North Carolina subject to proper 
alterations not inconsistent with the Confederation of the United 
States. "Provided always, that no regulations made or to be 
made by Congress shall tend to emancipate slaves otherwise 
than shall be directed by the Assembly or Legislatui-e of such 
State or States." 

5. If Congress should not accept the lands thus ceded and 
give due notice within twelve months, the Act should be of no 
force and the lands should revert to the States.^* 

These nationalizing measures and particularly the 
Act of Cession did not pass without a struggle. This 
act was passed in the House by a vote of fifty-two to 
forty-three; a resolution to defer it to another session 
had previously been lost only by a single vote." A sup- 
plementary act was passed, also, which declared that the 
sovereignty and jurisdiction of North Carolina with re- 



*4 Act of April Session, 1784. — Clark 's State Records of North Car- 
olina, Vol. XXIV, pp. 561-563. The text as printed says distinctly twelve 
months. Haywood wrote "two years", and the error has been followed by 
all subsequent historians. 

46 Clark's /State Beoords of North Carolina, Vol. XIX, pp. 642-643. 



18 

gard to the ceded territory should continue until Con- 
gress should accept the cession.*® 

On the third reading of the Act of Cession a protest 
was filed by William R. Davie and several others, which 
is of great interest as one of the rare expressions of the 
opinion of those opposed to the relinquishment of the 
western lands. Davie and his associates based their 
dissent on the following grounds. The extent of North 
Carolina's territory as bounded by the Treaty of Peace 
could never endanger the general Confederacy. The 
cession of so large a portion of the State, while Virginia 
and Georgia would retain an immense territory, would 
be dangerous and impolitic. Moreover, this State from 
her local circumstances and the weakness of the two 
southern States was obliged to advance for their aid and 
defense large sums which were still unliquidated, and 
as North Carolina's credits for those advances had been 
uniformly opposed by the eastern States it should have 
been expressly stipulated that the whole expense of the 
Indian expedition and militia aids to Georgia and South 
Carolina should pass to North Carolina's account in con- 
nection with the continental expenses. Again, the re- 
solves of Congress of February 17th or of April 18, 1783, 
with reference to the just proportion of the Federal debt 
should first have been carried into effect and these ac- 
counts liquidated. The western territory had been con- 
sidered by the people and solemnly pledged by the legis- 
lature as security for their claims against the public. 
Experience had shown that the State's want of public 
honesty had been already severely punished by her want 
of public credit, and they deemed it a false and mistaken 
conception that her credit would be increased with for- 
eign nations by an open and palpable breach of faith to 
her own citizens. Justice and policy required that the 



46 Act of April Session, 1784. — Clark 's State Becords of North Car- 
olina, Vol. XXIV, pp. 563-564. 



19 

domestic debt should be settled first. This point they 
expanded, explaining the difference between the domestic 
debt and the loan. Loans were made by those who spare 
from their consmnption to the necessity of government; 
but a large part of the domestic debt grew out of the 
generous advances of individuals to the public in the 
hour of distress. Suspension of payment must prove 
ruinous to those patriotic sufferers and a disgrace to the 
State. Again, the auditors had left many claims unad- 
justed. As the cession disregarded these, they *' could 
never consent that the public faith should be violated and 
the general interest sacrificed to the aggrandizement of 
a few land jobbers who have preyed on the depreciated 
credit of their country and the necessities of the unfor- 
tunate citizens". Lastly, they raised the point of con- 
stitutionality, declaring that by the Bill of Rights, the 
limits of the State were not to be altered "but for the 
purpose of erecting a new government only".*^ 

This strong remonstrance of Davie's was dated June 
3rd, the last day of the session. The Governor at once 
notified the North Carolina delegates of the measures 
which had passed, expressing again doubt as to the ac- 
ceptability of the terms of the cession.*^ Only a little 
more than a month later the Governor received a letter 
from Williamson, written on July 5, 1784, just after the 
adjournment of Congress and his return to North Caro- 
lina. Williamson criticised the eastern members for be- 
ing in such haste that they would take no measures for 
making peace with the southern Indians ; nor would they 
admit the authority of Congress to raise troops in time 
of peace for any purpose. 

Williamson said that he had not seen the North Car- 
olina Act of Cession, but he expressed surprise that no 

*' House Journal, 1784 (April Session), June 3. — Clark's State Rec- 
ords of North Carolina, Vol. XIX, pp. 712-714. 

48 Clark 's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, pp. 78-80. 



20 

provision was made for passing the Indian expeditions to 
the credit of the State in account with the United States. 
He presumed that the legislature when it reconsidered 
the matter would suspend the Cession. He called Mar- 
tin's attention to the extraordinary claims advanced by 
the eastern States : Massachusetts had advanced a claim 
for recompense for her privateering Penobscot expedi- 
tion; Connecticut for defending Greenwich, Groton, New 
London, and New Haven; and Massachusetts for extra 
bounties. North Carolina should do likewise.*"* 

Somewhat over two months later Williamson re- 
peated this advice in a letter to the Governor written 
from Edenton, September 30, 1784. This long letter is, 
in effect, a report to the Governor of the Federal politics 
of the last session from the standpoint of a southern 
State. It is a state paper of the highest value. The 
spirit of the letter is one which looks favorably upon the 
authority of Congress, but regards with jealousy the 
attempts of States in other sections, especially in New 
England, to secure for themselves advantages in their 
relations to the government of the Confederation and to 
the other States. 

Williamson begins his communication by presenting 
a new Federal question which we have not included in 
those discussed above. This concerned the purchase 
from the Indians of the lands ceded to Congress by New 
York and Virginia and, more particularly, the raising 



49 Clark's State Eecords of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, p. 81 fif. Of 
equal interest is Williamson's further comment on the plan for laying out 
and settling the western territory, which had not been agreed to in Con- 
gress, but which had been published in the journals for general considera- 
tion during the recess. ' ' This being our sheet anchor ' ', said Williamson, 
"is to be carefully managed. I think the plan proposed will prevent in- 
numerable frauds and enable us to save millions. The general object is 
to oblige the surveyors to account for the land by parallels, dots, and 
meridians. However, as I happen to have suggested the plan to the com- 
mittee, it is more than probable that I have parental prejudice in its 
favor. ' ' 



21 

of a military force necessary either to hold an advanta- 
geous treaty or to keep the Indians in check. But to the 
right of Congress to make requisitions of troops in times 
of peace some of the States would not assent ; hence the 
Congress had been compelled to resort to the poor ex- 
pedient of calling on certain States for militia. "The 
inefficacy and expense of this measure", said Williamson, 
''may probably give rise to better ones". 

He next passed to an even more important matter. 
This concerned the claims advanced by Massachusetts 
and New Hampshire and Connecticut with reference to 
the redemption of the old Continental money, to bounties 
for recruiting the Continental line, and to the amount 
of service rendered by these States. Williamson raised 
the question. Had Massachusetts done more than her quota 
or had North Carolina done less than her quota of mili- 
tary service? At present, he declared, he was not fur- 
nished with materials by which he could answer those 
questions. Continuing, he said that ''the personal ser- 
vice to be performed by the citizens of any State was to 
have been according to the number of its white inhabi- 
tants. And no account can be procured of the number 
of our inliabitants. Early in the Revolution our dele- 
gates for obvious reasons stated the number of our militia 
at 40,000, but the motives to such large statements have 
long since vanished and it is our duty and interest to 
be more correct." If as has been done in some States 
the population was counted as equivalent to five inhabi- 
tants for every man on the militia rolls it would be neces- 
sary to get from the brigadiers in North Carolina the 
musters of 1782 and thus compute the population. In 
such a return it would hardly be fair to include the set- 
tlers in the new counties over the mountains who were 
not there during the war, nor would any list taken the 
present year be so perfectly unexceptionable. Having 
ascertained the number of the militia it would perhaps 



22 

be found that near the beginning of the war North Caro- 
lina raised too great a proportion of Continental troops, 
and with the vast bodies of militia who did duty towards 
the end of the war chargeable to Continental account, 
probably North Carolina would not appear to have been 
deficient; if so, she would hardly object to the Massachu- 
setts claim provided she could obtain a similar credit. 
It would be necessary to know the different 'Hours of 
duty", the number of men, the length of their service, 
and at whose instance they were called out. This last 
point was specially important as many would not be 
chargeable to the accounts of the United States. Some 
of the northern States, he said, had been much more care- 
ful as to securing the proper Federal authority. 

But it would be very difficult to obtain an act to 
recognize claims for all militia service. Nine States 
would have to agree to such a measure. New Hampshire 
and Pennsylvania had already obtained full credit. 
Rhode Island, Delaware, and Maryland likewise would 
probably object to admitting any new charges by which 
their quota of the debt would be increased and nothing 
added to their own credit. In view of these difficulties 
Williamson said that he must refer to the Act of Cession 
passed by the last General Assembly. He was quite 
willing to believe that both those who supported and 
those who opposed that measure were eager for the honor 
of the State and the strength of the Union and only 
differed concerning the best means. However, some very 
unexpected incidents had presented themselves since the 
last spring, which must affect North Carolina's finances 
greatly and alter the policy of the State. First, Con- 
gress had adjourned so hurriedly that they could not 
obtain a vote for commissioners to treat of peace with 
the southern Indians. Should an Indian war break out, 
the western inhabitants of North Carolina would be 
among the chief sufferers. Second. Massachusetts and 



23 

Connecticut had advanced new claims to western territory 
in New York and westward of Pennsylvania respectively. 
Third, Rhode Island was said once more to have rejected 
the five per cent impost. Over the evil effects of this 
last, Williamson proceeded to dilate, emphasizing the 
danger which North Carolina would incur from the enact- 
ment of State customs tariffs by Virginia and South Car- 
olina, her commercial neighbors. 

Fourth, continued Williamson, Georgia which had 
rendered very little service during the war obtained a 
very extensive territory by the manner in which bound- 
aries had been settled at the Peace. She might yield to 
the United States at least sixty-three millions of acres 
after retaining for herself an extent of three hundred 
miles from the sea. North Carolina's share of such a 
cession, if Georgia would make it, would be equal to the 
greater part of that which remained for North Carolina 
to give. 

Fifth, Williamson brought forward the matter of 
the Indian expedition undertaken by North Carolina. 
He reminded the Governor that in 1782 the delegates had 
urged that if a cession should be made, it should be stip- 
ulated that the whole expense of such expeditions should 
pass to the account of North Carolina, and had expressed 
their uneasiness that they had not been informed nor 
authorized to apply to Congress for the approbation of 
that body. Failing such approbation he feared that such 
expeditions would continue to be a State expense. 

Recapitulating, Williamson urged that there were 
three measures which North Carolina was greatly inter- 
ested in promoting, namely: that Rhode Island and 
Georgia should agree to the five per cent impost; that 
Georgia should cede part of her territory; and that the 
expenses of the Indian expeditions should be paid by the 
United States. Could the western territory belonging 



24 

to North Carolina be so managed as to promote these 
several interests'? 

As to the last he expressed himself as hopeful, argu- 
ing as follows : 

If we should immediately complete the cession we shall give 
up the power of making advantageous terms and shall lose the 
argument which may bring others to adopt federal measures; 
on the other hand should we sell out what remains of this terri- 
tory to the w^estern inhabitants whatever inconveniences they 
may suffer, they will lose the prospect of becoming a separate 
state; the quota of our state will be doubled, though we shall 
hardly have the means of paying half of our present quota. In 
that case too we shall give up the means of making terms or the 
power of adopting better measures if better should present them- 
selves. The situation is critical. Perhaps it is most consistent 
with prudence and sound policy to make a pause. Whatever 
shall finally appear to be for the honor and time interest of the 
state may be done twelve months hence as well as now. But 
we may do wrong things which may not be undone.^" 

Williamson's letter was continued to great length, 
and included many other matters of great interest — 
the relation of North Carolina's quota to the eighth arti- 
cle of the Articles of Confederation, the interests of the 
western settlers, the various plans for the sale of western 
territory, the present situation of the public arms, and 
the sale of forfeited property in the State ftf North Caro- 
lina. But the important point for our purpose has been 
made clear by our analysis and by the extensive quota- 
tions which we have made, namely, his plea for a delay 
in the completion of the cession in order that North Car- 
olina's surrender of her western lands might be used as 
a lever to secure the best interest of the State in the con- 
flict of which the Congress was the battle ground. 

October 22nd the General Assembly met at New 
Bern. Several important acts were passed of which the 

60 Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, p. 94. -^ The 
letter as a whole occupies eleven pages of print. 



25 

sixteenth chapter was an act repealing the cession made 
in the preceding spring. The preamble to this act stated 
that the cession made at that time was made ''in full con- 
fidence that the whole expense of the Indian expeditions 
and militia aids to the state of South Carolina and 
Georgia should pass to account in our quota of the con- 
tinental expenses incurred by the late war; and also that 
the other states holding western territory would make 
similar cessions, and that all the states would unanimous- 
ly grant imposts of five per cent as a common fund for 
the discharge of the federal debt." But ''whereas, the 
states of Massachusetts and Connecticut, after accepting 
the cession of New York and Virginia, have since put in 
claims for the whole or a large part of that territory, and 
all the above expected measures for constituting a sub- 
stantial common fund, have been either frustrated or 
delayed", this act repealed the Act of Cession in its 
entirety.''^ 

As the Act of Cession had met with a protest, so its 
repeal met with the dissent of twenty members of the 
legislature, headed by A. Maclaine.®^ This protest said 
that however ill-founded the policy of the cession, the 
grant was irrevocable and the repeal, therefore, was dis- 
graceful. They were confirmed in this opinion by the 
conclusion of the protest entered into against the cession 
by many members of the last Assembly who, as members 
of this Assembly, had advocated and voted for the repeal. 
But were the territory thus granted within their reach 
they could not but believe it inconsistent to the true in- 
terest of the State to recall to their possession a country 
the inhabitants of which rejected their government, did 
not contribute to its support, and as long as they contin- 



51 Clark's State Eccords of North Carolina, Vol. XXIV, pp. 678-679. 

52 The protest was said by Maclaine to have been drawn up by Hay. — 
Clark's State Fecords of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, p. 186. 



26 

ued unwillingly attached to its empire, remained a weight 
to their expense without relieving their public burden. 

Next, they criticised the reasons set forth in the 
preamble of the repealing act, which, unsupported by 
testimony, they believed to be founded in an unjustifiable 
suspicion of the grand council of the Federal union of the 
United States of America which might render difficult the 
future settlement of North Carolina's claims. The action 
of the Assembly would contribute to the continuance and 
increase of that division in the council of the United 
States, already the source of so many evils. Again, the 
repeal of the cession without any increase to the strength 
of the State, as the inhabitants of the western country 
formed one-tenth of the numbers of the people, would by 
so much increase North Carolina's debt in settling the 
expenses of the war, as the number of the people formed 
the criterion for the discharge of that debt. Further- 
more, the attempt to recall the grant proved the Assembl}^ 
unworthy to receive for North Carolina any benefit from 
the liberal cessions of western territory made by other 
States to the United States as a common fund for the 
use and benefit of the United States. 

Lastly, between the absolute grant made by the for- 
mer act and the re-annexation of the present act, the gov- 
ernment of the western country would apparently pertain 
to both Congress and to this State and seem to belong 
to neither; and during the confusion, the inhabitants of 
the country contended for might from necessity erect 
themselves into a distinct government inconsistent with 
the benefit expected by the United States and subversive 
of their own pretended claims and the right saved to their 
citizens under the conditions of the Act of Cession." 

The North Carolina Assembly rose November 25th. 
A few days later Governor Martin wrote officially to the 



^^ House Journal, 1784 (October session), November 25. — Clark's 
State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XIX, pp. 830-832. 



27 

President of Congress to inform him that the Act of 
Cession had been repealed, and referred him to the dele- 
gates for further information on the subject.^* The same 
day Martin wrote also to the delegates giving an account 
of the Assembly's action in the matter of the cession, the 
interest of the foreign loan, the proposed treaty with the 
Cherokees, and various changes in the official system of 
the colony." To proceed with the course of events in 
Congress and in North Carolina would be an interesting 
task ; but the limits set for this paper — the North Caro- 
lina Cession and its repeal — have been reached. Even 
before this Assembly met, the possibility to which Mac- 
laine had referred in the last paragraph of his protest 
against the repeal had become an actual fact. On Au- 
gust 23d there came together the deputies from the coun- 
ties of Washington, Sullivan, and Green, to form the 
first convention to consider the interests of the settlers of 
that region. This was the first step in the development 
of the State of Franklin. 

Unquestionably news of the Franklin convention 
must have speedily reached the State authorities, but it 
was not until April, 1785, that the Council of State was 
called to consider events which had taken place west of 
the mountains." The repeal was passed, as we have 
seen, in November. In December, the following month. 
Governor Martin appointed Sevier to office under the 
North Carolina government, and in his letter informing 
him of this and giving him instructions no reference was 
made to the events of August." This official silence and 
inaction may indeed have been due to the wish tactfully 
to bring influence to bear upon the discontented pioneers. 
But at least one thing is certain, the conclusion of former 

5< Clark's State Eecords of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, pp. 110, 111. 
55 Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, pp. Ill, 112. 
58 CTark 's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, pp. 435, 436. 
57 Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, p. 109. 



28 

writers from Haywood down — that the repeal of the 
Act of Cession was hurried through solely because of the 
Franklin convention of August — is shown to be incor- 
rect, for a better reason appears in the arguments 
brought forward by Williamson and supported by 
Spaight with reference to the retention of the west- 
ern lands by North Carolina. The cession was with- 
drawn not so much because North Carolina feared 
the Franklin movement in itself, as because she wished 
to keep her hold on her western territory in order to 
settle her financial relations to the Confederation. The 
whole movement was much more than local in its impor- 
tance. It was a series of events which involved the deep- 
est problem in the period of the Confederation — the ad- 
justment of State and Federal relations in regard to two 
fundamental and correlated powers, the control of the 
purse and the control of the land system. 



W84 






• / ■• ' 



. '^^ A^ ^>Va^. -^xt. .<:,'^"^ *^f?Sl^'- t<. ^^' .: 






"0>9- 















u.^ o,,^:^^^- ^^^^ :i^^\ '^^0^ o^ 




,'^ o 
















































\ c-^" ^^^a^'. ■ '^^ A^' *:<aWa:o >. c-^" *^^»^»?ife'. ■ ^^ 



r.T» Yv 





















L- 'Jt.vV •^'jm^^^\ '-^^Q-^ o^, 







• %.^^ yM»c^ \/ ;:iife\ ^^..^^ /^ 



.^^ V. 






v-s^ 



•^^0^ 







> ,^*^^- V 


















■ ^°-^^-.°- /.•;^'\ 0°*.^^:;^:% /.Cj^ 



»"-v 














.^^/^ 






i>^ ..^"4 



^oV" 




<$>■ . * o « o 



l^^iL'* ^ 







WERJB(pKBjKDING 
GranivUio» k^A 



O. '"^•■'** ^^ 




^!> ♦ €) » o ' . V 




\> » • • » 






'o..* r, 



;• ,<«' V '•-m^^ ** "^^ . '"• 







v*<^^ 




mrnm 




